Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[Dominae]

Sounds like an awesome idea to me!

[DrSpike]

It's important to realise that firepower, more hitpoints, and averaging techniques are statistically all similar ways of attaining the same goal (edited much later: i.e. altering the probabilities for a single battle). It doesn't really matter what label you put on it, except to appease the 'reality' whores.

[Dominae]

SpencerH's suggestion is a much toned-down version of Firepower. It addresses the Tank versus Spearmen "problem", while keeping true to the original design of Civ3.


Dominae

[RobC]

That's not a bad idea, making the averaging only come into play when units are from different eras. The dominance of cavalry will be certainly blunted once Riflemen become commonplace (it's just a couple of techs away, and the AI will usually beeline for Nationalism). It would also slightly reduce the useful lifespan of units like the immortal, gallic warrior, and dromon, but they are pretty powerful anyway.

[padlock]

Originally posted by DrSpike
It's important to realise that firepower, more hitpoints, and averaging techniques are statistically all similar ways of attaining the same goal. It doesn't really matter what label you put on it, except to appease the 'reality' whores.

I disagree. Let me give you an example:

Unit with an attack 2 attacks a unit with a (modified) defense of 10

If both units had only 1 hit point, the attacking unit would have a 1/6 chance of winning (2/10+2). Another way of looking at this is to say that it would take an average of 6 units to win the attack.

Now if each unit had 6 hitpoints, the chance of the attacking unit to win the battle completely goes down dramatically. However, the attacking unit will on average do 1 point of damage, and therefore it will still take an average of 6 units to win the fight (assuming no healing is done in between the attacks).

The same holds true no matter how many hit points you add. In fact, the higher the number, the more likely you're going to need exatcly 6 units (as opposed 3, or 4, or 7, or 8, etc.).

As you can see, adding more hit points doesn't affect the relative power between the units, it simply reduces the uncertainty.

This is in sharp contrast to the 'averaging' system which was proposed for the beta, which acts simply as a bonus multiplier to the stronger unit. While I haven't done the math, I can tell you that under that system, averaging 4 dice would mean that instead of needing 6 Units to win, you might need something like 100.

Quite a different affect!

[DrSpike]

Well I have done the math, many times whilst analysing the combat model for Civ2, then later when Civ3 came out. There is not a perfect matchup (hence why I said similar) between the techniques, but they all essentially have the same goal.

You even said it yourself, you just don't realise it.

"As you can see, adding more hit points doesn't affect the relative power between the units, it simply reduces the uncertainty"

Correct. This is what all 3 methods do though.

"This is in sharp contrast to the 'averaging' system which was proposed for the beta, which acts simply as a bonus multiplier to the stronger unit"

Incorrect. The averaging system proposed (well in fact there were 2 subtly different ones analysed) works to change the overall odds of the stronger unit winning by reducing the variance in the distribution(s) from which the key numbers come.

I'm not going to say any more on this..........I knew I shouldn't start the debate. I teach this stuff all week, the weekend is a break.

[Arrian]

Spencer's idea sounds interesting.

If implemented, however, I'd suggest a free upgrade of Immortals to Med Inf, to prevent disadvantaging the Persians. As it stands now, IIRC, Immortals would upgrade directly to guerillas.

Any other units that have the same stats as a unit in the next era, in the same upgrade chain? I can't think of any...

-Arrian

[alexman]

Hoplites and Numidian Mercs.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Let me contribute this to the discussion though. Is there a way to use the combat averaging idea to bring back the firepower concept from civ2.

ancient unit v ancient unit no averaging
ancient unit v middle age unit average of 2
ancient unit v industrial age unit average of 3
ancient unit v modern age unit average of 4

etc

How would such changes effect the game?

Interesting idea, however it would have some unforeseen results with a few UUs. Immortals would actually have a greater chance of defeating Pikemen despite pikes being a more modern unit. Similarily, Sipahi would crush Riflemen in the open.

[SpencerH]

I agree that changing HP and A/D values has similar effects. Thats why they have been so heavily used in many mods to try to balance the combat inconsistencies. Unfortunately, there are some pretty severe graphics limitations to the number of HP you can add. That problem became especially true for armies with elite units with 7-8 HP each. My own mod used completely re-done A/D values to the same aim but if you wish to play other humans you all have to use the same mod (which can be problematic).

This is the first time that I'm aware of that Firaxis has tried to openly correct the more glaring strings of combat uncertainties while trying to maintain an element of 'the imponderable' that occurs in combat. I believe that they have been limited in this regard by the original design concepts (ie no firepower and no unit superiority flags) and that this is an idea that was believed to be a workable solution within the original game framework. Averaging combat results may be the only practical way to address this question. I think we should put forward ideas that may be actually implementable.

[DrSpike]

I actually think your proposal is reasonable, as would be expected in replicating an effect with a long pedigree from Civ2 and SMAC. I just don't like people not realising the equivalence.

It seems probable you do though, and I confess I had not thought of graphical limitations as the binding constraints here!

Firepower was dropped and there was a statement some years ago about it making it too hard for people to calculate the odds of winning. This is why they dropped it and simplified the way hitpoints worked. I shudder at the thought of having to explain the variable averaging model to posters with a limited grasp of statistics............it's even worse!

However, as someone who kicked up hell when firepower was removed I am warmed to the core to see people trying to replicate its effects once more. Really the truest form of flattery.

[Catt]

Surprised that this hasn;t made its way over to 'Poly yet. A poster called TheNiceOne was responding to a post from someone who was disappointed with the decision to pull the combat change and stated:

Originally posted by TheNiceOne at CFC
But the problem is that since the patch is so necessary (to fix corruption and GPT bugs), this wouldn't be an opportunity to try out the feature, but rather us being forced to use this "feature" or live with corruption/GPT bugs for maybe half a year.

With that for the context, Jesse (as "Tavis") posted the following:

Originally posted by Jesse at CFC
Other than the half year part, you nailed that one TheNiceOne.

The plan for the addition was always to make it a configurable option. However, it's always better to hardcode for initial testing. I liked the change a lot, but as it has been correctly stated in the forums - Civ3 was designed with 1 roll, better to fix what was actually 'really' broken (corruption) then dig into playing with the other gameplay algorithms.

My primary concern was for multiplayer - the game is already time consuming, if you suddenly add on needing 5 warriors to kill a spear that wasn't fortified standing on desert then games would be REALLY long... most of the tests I ran initially were with higher A/D level units or with 31 AI and things were really smooth. After sending out the list and getting initial feedback, I got these test results:

(test performed attacking 0 terrain bonus tile defended by an unfortified unit (if fortified F )

10 Warrior vs 10 Spearman

1 Warrior Win, +3 other HP's, 3 PROMO's

10 Warrior vs 10 FSpearman

4 HP's removed 2 PROMO

10 Archers vs 10 Spearman

6 Archer Wins -2HPRatio, 1 PROMO

10 Archers vs 10 FSprearman

4 Archers Wins +3HP

Once towns, forts, hills, rivers, and mountains were added it became apparent that the Ancient Era would require significant rebalancing (especially if you ended up without iron!!)

My final tests were 20HP vs 20HP with a 100 percent offensive bonus and a 100 percent defensive bonus. You already know the result.

Keep the feedback coming! The patch is now 1.11 - I'll re-rerun the tests to make sure Mike isn't trying to be funny =)

Jesse

Interesting that the plan for the addition was always to make it a configurable option. Also interesting that the conclusion on retesting some aspects was that it "became apparent that the Ancient Era would require significant rebalancing."

As to the

Keep the feedback coming!

As I posted at CFC, unless I am wildly mistaken, I think it is safe to assume that the responsiveness and engagement Jesse and Firaxis have displayed at the fan sites will ensure plenty of feedback (hopefully constructive and reasoned) from the fans.

Again, thanks for the engagement from Firaxis

Catt

[Theseus]

[padlock]

Originally posted by DrSpike
There is not a perfect matchup (hence why I said similar) between the techniques, but they all essentially have the same goal.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. As my example above pointed out, using one method would leave relative unit strengths the same (meaning it would always take, on average, X times as many units to defeat a unit X times stronger), whereas the other would change them drastically.

In any case, I too am ready for a weekend off from all this analysing

[DrSpike]

Look, all 3 methods can leave relative strengths the same, whilst improving the odds for the more advanced unit through addressing the variance (or replicating this effect) of the relevant distributions. That is why I made my post above. It is indisputable, so I'm not agreeing to disagree.